November 27, 2012

Did the GOP's Asian vote really drop 9 points?

I've been reading a lot of learned explanations of why Asian support for the GOP suddenly collapsed between the 2008 Edison exit poll (35%) and the 2012 Edison exit poll (26%), such as Richard Posner's, Charles Murray's, and Razib's

But, how sure are we that this drop-off really, fully happened? For example, if you haven an explanation for why the Asian vote swung sharply away from the Republican candidate in the 2012 poll, then why did the Other race vote swing almost as sharply toward the Republicans (up from 31% in 2008 to 38% in 2012)? And while you are at it, who are The Other anyway?

One common theory, for example, is that Asians were reacting negatively to all that Southern Protestant Jesus Talk coming from Romney and Ryan. Those Baptists really get on Asians' nerves. 

Except that Romney and Ryan aren't Southern and aren't Protestant and tried hard to avoid talking about religion and only talk about marginal tax rates. Granted, the GOP has plenty of Southern Protestants (who presumably due to some oversight are still allowed to vote), but, then, Romney and Ryan apparently did quite a bit better with Jews in 2012 than McCain and Palin did. Maybe Palin reminded Jewish women of all those sexy shiksas they fear and loathe, while Ryan kind of looked like a nice Jewish boy?

Or, maybe, we shouldn't get too invested in explaining changes from 2008 to 2012 that might just be artifacts of limited sample sizes and other polling problems?

Exit polling is difficult to do exactly right because you have to choose ahead of time which tiny percentage of voting places you are going to send workers to. This makes for lumpy results. 

Unfortunately, the Reuters-Ipsos online panel, which had a sample size of 41,000 voters, lumps Asians and Other together. Unfortunately, their convenient webpage for crosstabbing results lumps Asians and Others together. This Other Minorities (Asians plus American Indians plus who knows what) category went 38% for Romney. 

A third approach is to look at overall vote totals in heavily Asian communities. A commenter points to Orange County, CA, a traditionally Republican county with a lot of prosperous Asians who often register Republican:
Wisckol: O.C. Asian Americans - GOP in name only? 
They’re more likely to register as Republican than Democrat, but appear to have supported Obama. 
By MARTIN WISCKOL  
THE ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER 
mwisckol@ocregister.com 
Orange County's Asian American voters, led by Vietnamese Americans, are more likely to register as Republicans than Democrats. But party allegiance is loose and there are indications the demographic favored Barack Obama over Mitt Romney. 
There were no extensive exit polls in Orange County, but the county's four cities with the highest proportion of Asian Americans all favored Obama – despite all four having more Republicans than Democrats. Irvine (39 percent Asian American) and Garden Grove (37 percent Asian) each gave Obama 53 percent of their vote. Westminster (47 percent Asian American) gave Obama 49.7 percent and Romney 48.2 percent – even though the GOP has an 8-point voter-registration advantage there. Tiny La Palma (48 percent Asian) favored Obama by half a percentage point. 
Except for Tustin, all of the county's other 24 GOP cities voted for Romney. All six Democratic cities backed Obama.

This suggests New York-style voting among Orange Co. Asians: vote for Obama for the symbolism, vote against the Democrats for local, practical matters.

Unfortunately, this column doesn't look specifically at changes since 2008.

So, the entire topic remains one where I don't have anything very interesting to say, just to caution that we should be worried about overtheorizing.

114 comments:

Anonymous said...

Most Asians I know (college-educated or higher, east Asian 30 and 40-somethings) have never voted in their lives. They simply do not vote. They have very little interest or faith in the political process, especially since they live in overwhelmingly blue states.

Does anyone know if they participate in proportion to their population? Even if they do, I'm willing to bet that it's over-participaton by other Asian ethnicities.

Most politically active Asians I see seem to be Indians, SE Asians, and some Chinese. Most Chinese, Japanese, and Koreans I know, simply do not see their participation as having a meaningful impact.

I'm not sure how their parents vote. If I recall correctly, I think I once read that Filipinos, Japanese and Chinese vote mostly Democratic, while Koreans, Vietnamese, and Taiwanese vote Republican. Not sure if that still holds or ever was true.

Razib said...

just to be clear, i'm not too fixated on any shift between 2008 to 2012. rather, the shift between 1990 and 2010. we have e-polls for '88 and '92, and those showed asians leaning republican. this changed in the mid-90s, and solidified in the 2000s. but, as i observed, conservative protestant asians still lean republican.

Anonymous said...

this changed in the mid-90s, and solidified in the 2000s

immigrants vs their liberally educated kids?

Anonymous said...

Most Asians I know (college-educated or higher, east Asian 30 and 40-somethings) have never voted in their lives. They simply do not vote. They have very little interest or faith in the political process, especially since they live in overwhelmingly blue states.

To expound a bit further, they simply see American politics a realm for Whites and Blacks to air out their differences. I guess they haven't noticed the rise of La Raza.

Jefferson said...

So 38 percent of "Others" voted for Mitt Romney. When I think of the racial category "Other", I think of people like Miranda Cosgrove from ICarly.

Racially I do not know what the hell her character is suppose to be, because she has some Asian or maybe Native American features, but at the same time her brother on the show looks like a regular Caucasian dude.

Anonymous said...

Perhaps to many Asians, Bush, Gingrich, Palin and countless others ruined the Republican brand... Many also had it pretty good during the Clinton/tech bubble years.

Anonymous said...

One common theory, for example, is that Asians were reacting negatively to all that Southern Protestant Jesus Talk coming from Romney and Ryan. Those Baptists really get on Asians' nerves. 

Except that Romney and Ryan aren't Southern and aren't Protestant. Granted, there are plenty of Southern Protestants in the GOP, but, then, Romney and Ryan did quite a bit better with Jews in 2012 than McCain and Palin did.


In much of America, the news media turned Todd Akin, Richard Mourdock, warmongering Bush-era neocons, and reactionary clergy into the face of both the Republican party and the Romney campaign. Every comment about rapes being a blessing from Jesus, every homophobic rant, and every call for war against Iran/Syria/Mali was imputed to the Republicans as a whole. (Romney's decision to give controversial Bush-era figures such as Dan Senor and Eric Edelman prominent roles in his campaign made it even easier to portray him as a warmonger.) An Asian family living in California would have seen an unrelenting stream of White Republicans pushing an agenda that seemed to the right of the Taliban on many social issues and who seemed determined to start more wars.

(In many ways, the Dems and the media inverted the strategy the Republicans used in 1996 and 2010. Instead of using the views and behavior of a few Dems in DC to discredit Dems running for federal, state, and local offices out in flyover country, the Dems used the views and behavior of a few Republicans running in flyover country to discredit the Republican party as a whole.)

As for Obama “only” getting 69% of Jewish vote, so what? Not only do they make up only 2% of the population, the Republican's endless pandering to Jewish groups may have cost them the election. A month before the election, many Democrats were openly predicting that Obama's opposition to attacking Iran ensured that he would carry Ohio by at least two percent.

Many working-class Whites in states such as Ohio were turned off by Romney's constant promises to attack Iran, to stand by Israel no matter the cost, to exclude antiwar Republicans from party functions, and to turn American foreign policy over to Benjamin Netanyahu. It was, after all, working-class Whites from places such as Ohio who died in Iraq, not wealthy Jewish neoconservatives. And it will be working-class Americans who will bear the “shared sacrifice” required to pay for the war through, for example, cuts to Social Security. The more Romney and his surrogates insisted that critics of attacking Iran and subordinating the interests of average Americans to those of Israel had no place in the Republican party, the less many White voters wanted to support him.

Prophet said...

Is Steve's protest more of the "we can't trust the polls" line of reasoning that seemed to be floating around prior to the election day? I thought we were past this? This line of reasoning isn't even an argument unless you can point to a flaw in the Edison exit poll methodology.

Furthermore, Razib has noted that Asians have actually become less Christian (overall) in the past couple of decades. Thus, the GOP with its heavy appeal to Christians (see Todd Akin & Richard Mourdock) should be getting less popular as time goes on with Asians. The trend in the polls is certainly correct.

Anonymous said...

On the rare occasion we see Asian politics on TV, specifically when they actually have fist fights in their Parliaments, we snicker. We laugh at their disorder and barbaric behavior. But when you research what those fights were over, I'm amazed that our politicians and public doesn't act with the same vigor and passion at the very laws that are destroying us. If Americans don't care, why would immigrants?

This one was about consolidated ownership of mass media.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHMrgwAuJ_U

Steve Sailer said...

"Is Steve's protest more of the "we can't trust the polls" line of reasoning that seemed to be floating around prior to the election day? I thought we were past this? This line of reasoning isn't even an argument unless you can point to a flaw in the Edison exit poll methodology."

Looking at multiple sources of data instead of whichever one is most convenient or congenial is Nate Silver 101. I've done that since 2000, when there was one large exit poll and two small ones. The large one came up with 35% of Hispanics voting GOP, and the two smaller ones came up with 31% and 38% so, as I stated at the time, I just used the 35% figure because that was the average.

As for inherent difficulties in conducting exit polls, I've been pointing them out since 2004's 44% of the Hispanic vote fiasco, in which Edison eventually admitted they'd messed up. If you stop and think about what you'd have to do to carry out an exit poll, you will see that it is innately hard and tricky to pull off right. You have to guess ahead of time where you think a representative sample of voters can best be found. You only get one day to do it with no real rehearsal. In contrast, most telephone polls take 2-3 days, and can benefit from mid-course corrections.

We've seen the exit poll crater completely in 2002. I dug up the data a year later.) And we saw Edison's exit poll pick the wrong winner in 2004.

Anonymous said...

This one was about consolidated ownership of mass media.

In the West, we don't even whimper out loud... Only through our keyboards. Sigh.

Anonymous said...

Der Spiegel provides a direct Teutonic pipeline into the hive mind of the American MSM:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/commentary-total-capitalism-and-the-downfall-of-america-a-865437.html
(...)
"We want to believe that Obama failed because of the conservatives inside his own country. Indeed, the fanatics that Mitt Romney depends on have jettisoned everything that distinguishes the West: science and logic, reason and moderation, even simple decency. They hate homosexuals, the weak and the state. They oppress women and persecute immigrants. Their moralizing about abortion doesn't even spare the victims of rape. They are the Taliban of the West."
(...)

Anonymous said...

How the Asian American electorate shaped Election Night 2012

"Election Night 2012...We added a record four new Asian American congressional representatives — all Democratic —
...
CNN exit polling shows that 73% of Asian American voters supported President Obama nationally last night."

Anonymous said...

Romney's warmongering would seem to explain why he had a stronger than usual appeal to Jews, but alienated Asians. Most people who aren't Jews or fundamentalist Christians don't really want to attack Iran.

Anonymous said...

Perhaps the more mathematically-grounded Asian population was especially alarmed by the Romney campaign's mathematically-impossible budget proposals. This was something there was no equivalent to in 2008.

Anonymous said...

Garden Grove is also heavily hispanic about 39 percent hispanic as well and Irvine white population tends to be more liberal than most. But Obama won these cities at much lower percentage than the Bay area or La. Westminster it was almost a tie not New York City voting because in New York asians voted much higher for Obama.

Mark Caplan said...

"Except that Romney and Ryan aren't Southern and aren't Protestant and tried hard to avoid talking about religion...."

Romney, in trying to pawn himself off as a Protestant, talked about religion all the time. On one highly publicized occasion, he sought and obtained the endorsement of the Rev. Billy Graham. Romney said over and over that he opposed abortion if only the mother's health would be wrecked. Many voters knew that Paul Ryan co-sponsored the Ryan-Akins bill to impose an absolute ban on all abortions, no exceptions.

Anonymous said...

Obama to me was more of a warmonger than Romeny. He not only carried on the Bush Wars but included Libya, and caused the messed in Egypt by not supporting the former head of state and also caused the messed in Syria. Its true one asian said he was against Romeny because of Isreal but look at the Arab Spring of OBama or the Kosovo-Serb involved of Clinton. The neo-cons are not the most warmongering the neo-liberals also get us into messes as well.

Anonymous said...

The evangelical lunatic label may not fit Romney and Ryan, but the Democrats did a better job painting them with it than they did in 2008, even though it fit Palin/McCain better. The Republican Party in general was also tarred this year by association with Todd "legitimate rape" Akin and Richard "rapist babies are a gift from God" Mourdock.

The Jewish vote probably swung towards Romney because Obama's sympathies lie with the Muslims, not Israel, and because there are a small but non-negligable percentage of Jews are sane enough to realize that empowering Islamists is bad for the Jews. Jewish demographics are also slowly trending towards the ones who are willing to breed, who are very religious and vote Republican.

ben tillman said...

Is Steve's protest more of the "we can't trust the polls" line of reasoning that seemed to be floating around prior to the election day? I thought we were past this? This line of reasoning isn't even an argument unless you can point to a flaw in the Edison exit poll methodology.

He did point to a flaw: n=41,000.

It could be sampling error.

Mr. Anon said...

"Anonymous said...

Every comment about rapes being a blessing from Jesus, every homophobic rant,....."

By "homophobic rant" I assume you mean "polite disapproval of gay marriage" - as this all any Republican politician has ever offered.

Your characterization of the face of the Republican party is ridiculous. It is not how they are. It is not even how they seem. It is only how deluded liberals interpret what they see.

Steve Sailer said...

"The Jewish vote probably swung towards Romney because Obama's sympathies lie with the Muslims,"

But he wasn't Barack Hussein Obama in 2008? And McCain didn't seem like he'd Bomb Bomb Bomb, Bomb Bomb Iran?

I don't really know what to make of changes from 2008 to 2012, so I just want to think first about how sure we can be that these changes actually happened.

Josh Yellowfever said...

Steve, you seem not quite getting it. The Romney/Ryan campaign has christian fundamentalist ideology in its core. The rhetoric of white christian ideology is front and center. Worst of all, it did not court any Asian political organization. Eest Asian may be with Republican in some issues, but disagree on many issues with the Republicans, particularly some of the social agenda, like increasing military spending (while cutting other domestic programs and having tax cut?), absolute pro-life stance, pro-war tendency in the name of spreading democracy, medicare voucher proposal. These issues are grave concern to most of us, and decidedly outweigh other issues that we may agree with the Republicans. If Republicans continue to pursue these "core" values to energize their base, they better count us out.

Bigfoot said...

Steve,

I love your writing .. and this is my favorite site.

But you are quite a bit naive and a little dense on this issue.

I worked in law enforcement for many years and had a China-town beat for a number of them in a major metropolitan area.

I thought that the commentor Peterike a couple of threads back pretty much summed up why most Chinese (and presumably many other Asians) will never ever get onboard with the Republicans.

Once you get to know the inner workings of their culture (Chinese Americans) you see how they are masters at gaming the system ... why else do other Asians refer to them as "the Jews of the Orient."

To Peterike's comments (which I advise all readers to search out a couple of threads back on the same topic of the lack of an an Asian Republican vote) I would add that a seldom discussed problem is the many illegal immigrants from China brougth in by Snakeheads (Chinese mafia) at $50,000.00 a head to work in Chinese restaurants and other businesses... its basically a form of enslaving their own people...also the so called tourist birth visas is another angle they use...

People routinely are killed who are unable to pay the Snakeheads back once they are in the U.S. for a number of years.

If they treat their own like this how do you think they will treat Whites if they ever get the upper hand?


People here on this blog are insanely delusional about these so called model minorities.

Naivete and stupidity are not virtues.

As another one of your posters pointed out..it's basically tribal ...Jews, Hispanics, Blacks, Asians, and Indians want to displace Whites and the best way to insure this is to insure that their progeny benefit from the racial spoils sysem that the Democrats set up and support.. with the Jews masquerading as Whites to take the slots set aside for Whites at selective places like Harvard.

The small disadvantage Asians suffer in college admissions is vastly outweighed by the many advantages in minority hiring, small business loans (which usually are not easily available to Whites)...etc... and other freebie things or scams Peterike mentioned in his comment.

Everybody ...please drink a cup of coffee and wake up.

Anonymous said...

Well, a lot of white REpublicans still remember Ronald REagan fondly in California even if he was responsible for the state more than anyone changing from white to hispanic. Too asians came in heavily into California because of Kennedy so they own the Democratics. Three, the Teaparty Patriots even in states like California have a lot of God tallk which probably turns the young off. The patriots will complain about immmirgation legal or illegal but support someone because they use religous language or want a tax cut.

Anonymous said...

Democratic party enthusiast Andrew Tobias thinks the Ds just got out the vote better than the Rs.

http://andrewtobias.com/column/how-we-won/

Here is an thought I just had. California went for the Ds because they though Obama was more likely to bail out the state pension plan than Romney. This would explain why so many naturally Republican Whites and Asians voted for Obama and Prop 30. They need their own pensions bailout, or at least hope not to see their own tax burden increase due to pension costs.

Voting on Prop 30 might indicate something, Orange co. If I read the vote.sos.ca.gov correctly Orange co voted 52% Romney but 59% against prop 30.

Anonymous said...

Personality, I doubt that Oh was so anti-war, I think that Social Security was one factor but the good old industrical-Military complex aerospace had better paying jobs than most of the manufactoring sector. California use to have a lot until it shifted to lower cost states. In fact aerospace manufactoring keeps Washingon State, Virginia, and TExas, and the Huntsville area of Alabama in good shaped

Anonymous said...

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2010/results/polls/#USH00p1

Asians voted 58-40 Democrat in the 2010 midterms.

Anonymous said...

authentic asian american here.

i am a right-leaning libertarian by nature. in an ideal world, i would have voted for ron paul or gary johnson (again). i also live in a very closely-battled swing state. this time around i voted for obama. this is why.

romney and huntsman were the most acceptable candidates on the primary stage, yes. moderate, pragmatic, intelligent and a history of achievement in something outside of government.

however, the dog whistling on race, immigration and gays from the likes of bachmann, gingrich and santorum were repulsive to me, and most people like me that i know. herman cain just came off sounding like an ignorant boob when he started talking about foreign policy.

you are missing the fact that asian americans perceive that if they vote for RR, they are voting to bring to power the coalition represented by the entire republican primary field.

bigotry is alive and well in this country, still, and is active in ways that people like steve sailer cannot understand. i am at the stage in my life where i want my children to be fully first-class citizens, and i am willing to take an unfair tax cut to make that happen. the harm that will accrue to them with a few black kids cutting the line to a harvard admission is far, far less than the harm i have experienced and seen outside of college admissions.

FWIW, i know one asian american who was die hard romney to the end. he is ex-military, and not to bright. he is an NRA gun nut who believes there will be a zombie apocalypse engineered by the government and a UN ban on guns to prepare the way for an army of the undead to dominate the living. i am quite serious.

mr. sailer, i like that you are generally more thoughtful and interested in the asian american mind, but in reading your work, it seems to me that you would benefit from talking to a broader variety of asian americans, because there is a lot of subtlty that you are missing. we are not all status-seeking materialists, and the ones who are are more that way because they are striving, status-conscious bourgeoisie rather than asian. you don't imagine that all the benz and vuitton dealerships can survive in california only selling to asians, do you? outside of southern california, where you grew up, i see plenty of the white, black and hispanic middle class behaving in those "stereotypically asian" ways down to the fine points of consumption behavior.

Anonymous said...

"People routinely are killed who are unable to pay the Snakeheads back once they are in the U.S. for a number of years.

If they treat their own like this how do you think they will treat Whites if they ever get the upper hand?"

Really, officer? You imagine that gang members are representative of an entire ethnicity? I hardly think that the skinheads or the KKK is representative of the thinking of mainstream white people.

No doubt dealing with the thugs and goons of an ethnic neighborhood gives one the worst impression of the community. I can imagine this is why most cops are sour on NAMs. But you are just as wrong.

Anonymous said...

I generally appreciate your statistical analysis, but sometimes the categories are more conceptual than based in social reality. Both Asians and Hispanics are at best pan-ethnic or meta-ethnic groups that cannot be presumed to have the same mindsets, interests, or perspectives. Even at the level of single-national origin groups solidarity can not be assumed because their home countries may have their own ethnic divisions.

Anonymous said...

As for Obama “only” getting 69% of Jewish vote, so what? Not only do they make up only 2% of the population, the Republican's endless pandering to Jewish groups may have cost them the election

Thats right but they have the media, academia and big finance too, their votes outweigh everybody else.

Same with the gay vote - there isnt one. Its an irrelevance. But the media acts as if gay concerns should be pandered to.

Snippet said...

My wife voted for Obama in large part because of Romney's "God Talk." She's not Asian, but my point is that the Republicans do have a "creep factor" problem with non-Christians, even if the candidate of the hour is disciplined enough to keep his mouth shut about religion most of the time.

Anonymous said...

Perhaps the more mathematically-grounded Asian population was especially alarmed by the Romney campaign's mathematically-impossible budget proposals.

Thats a relief, the proven exemplary fiscal rectitude of the Obama administration can continue! Thank goodness the asians can see this.

Anonymous said...

The Jewish vote probably swung towards Romney...

This is ridiculous. I keep reading things like this that the Jews abandoned Obama, etc. THEY STILL VOTED ALMOST 70% FOR HIM. If getting 70% of the vote is being abandoned, I'd love to be abandoned. If the GOP had managed to be abandoned by only getting 70% of the white vote, they'd have won.

Anonymous said...

however, the dog whistling on race, immigration and gays from the likes of bachmann, gingrich and santorum were repulsive to me

Yep thats right, if those white folks dont get out of the way and realize they dont have any right to their own nation we will all be better off.

Anonymous said...

Asians like status. I believe many felt that voting for Obama carried more cachet than a Romney pull, for whatever reason.
Second, Asians are inward-facing and very clever, thus they realize that benefits are to be gotten from their ethnic status--why align with the party that's too stupid to trade on tribalism? When/if they begin to directly feel the pinch from quotas and disparate impact (meaning, when names get named) I would still expect them to vote Democrat, but get more politically involved because Dems are the party of identity politics, and trades can be made. Republicans just roll over and take it, again and again.

Paul Mendez said...

The Romney/Ryan campaign has christian fundamentalist ideology in its core.

LOL!

A Mormon and a Catholic -- about as far as you can get from Christian fundamentalism while still being Christian.

Somebody needs to take Western Religion 101.

Anonymous said...

As Krugman said the other day, the current Republican party is an alliance of oligarchs and the preachers, full stop.

It's the social issues, stupid.

Anonymous said...

"authentic asian american here.... i am at the stage in my life where i want my children to be fully first-class citizens, and i am willing to..."

To advance your own children, you'll unhesitatingly throw in your lot with those intent on dispossessing the children of white Americans. Noted.

TWTS said...

"however, the dog whistling on race"

Please give me some concrete examples of what you considered to be racial dog whistling? As someone who doesn't care about being called a racist and has very un-PC views on race, Im not sure how I wouldn't hear these seeing as how they'd be aimed at a guy like me. If the GOP had any balls and actually tackled race in an honest fashion, I might have some respect for them and vote for their candidates instead of third party candidates.

"bigotry is alive and well in this country"

You're free to leave at any time. Maybe you could someplace where bigotry doesn't exist, like Mexico.

"i am at the stage in my life where i want my children to be fully first-class citizens"

Once again, you're free to leave at anytime and raise your children where you feel they would be treated better. But in the meantime, please give me some examples on ways in which asians are not treated like first class citizens in this country.

Anonymous said...

When whites vote against their economic interests, the MSM goes off its rocker and books like 'What's the Matter with Kansas' are written.

Will we ever get the same reaction when Asians and Jews vote against their economic interests?

Anonymous said...

I am Asian-American, came to this country at age one.

Steve Sailer needs to stop spinning hypotheses in his head and go out and talk with Asian-Americans, lots of them. If he did, he would know what I know.

My father was a Republican for over twenty years. There's a reason he switched out. His conservative views didn't change. What changed was the GOP. A lot of Asian-Americans I know joined the GOP for Reagan in 1980 and stayed there for some time. They slowly quit as the GOP went into directions having nothing whatsoever with fiscal conservatism and law and order, but having everything to do with Jesus, wars, abortion, creationism, anti-immigration sentiments and all kinds of other stuff.

So please wake up. Asian-Americans are Dems because that's the lesser of evils. I am willing to bet that MORE THAN HALF of Asian-Americans would go GOP if you took out the Jesus, wars, abortion, creationism, and anti-immigration.

Anonymous said...

anti-immigration sentiments

For the Asian guy who wrote this, I have a question. Do we ever get to stop or throttle back on immigration ? We are taking in over 1 million LEGAL immigrants per year, each year, for over thirty years, and there is no sign of it subsiding.

For those keeping score, Europe has sent us around 45 million immigrants since the days of Jamestown Colony, while the non European world has sent us 50 million just since 1965. So you have already gotten your fair share. Maybe after a couple hundred years your descendants will have multiplied to the levels that European Americans did.

But I ask the question again, now that non-Europeans have sent more immigrants than Europeans, when can we turn off the spigot?

Anonymous said...

bigotry is alive and well in this country, still, and is active in ways that people like steve sailer cannot understand.

I quite agree, and most of the Republican bigotry is religious rather than racial. Trust me on this. I am a white, religious, spiritual, non-Christian - and have seen plenty of religious bigotry from the Republicans, Neo-Cons, and the New Right. I am not talking about witch burnings, Inquisition, or other forms of murder and genocide. I am not even talking of throwing bombs at abortion clinics - bur rather sneaky petty forms of harassment. If non-Christian Asian-Americans endure this, I can see how they consider the Democrats the "lesser of two evils."

riches said...

“…Palin reminded Jewish women of all those sexy shiksas they fear and loathe…”

Could this be? But didn’t Jewish director Marcel Ophuls tell the world in his The Sorrow and the Pity that it was the shiksas of the occupied European countries who were happy to see the jewish women hauled off to the camps? That the beauty of the jewesses was too extraordinary?

Jews in media wouldn’t misrepresent the facts.

Devil and Angel's Kiss said...

"They slowly quit as the GOP went into directions having nothing whatsoever with fiscal conservatism and law and order, but having everything to do with Jesus, wars, abortion, creationism, anti-immigration sentiments and all kinds of other stuff."

Ohhhh, that stuff turned your father off SO MUCH that he chose to vote for the party of welfare, affirmative action, gay agenda, illegal immigration, political correctness, censorship, rap culture, cultural Marxism, abortion up to 9 months, and etc.
And you mean liberal Zionists who control the Democratic Party aren't for wars? Hmm, that would have been news to Gaddafi and the Afghans, Pakistani, and Yemenis bombed by Obama.

But seriously...

your rant about GOP's changing and your dad not changing is SO MUCH BULLCOCKY.

Reagan allied with staunch anti-abortion groups. He was far closer to the likes of Falwell and Robertson than Romney or McCain ever was to the Christian Right.
Also, Reagan even had guys like Buchanan in his administration. Imagine GOP having someone like Buchanan today. Reagan sent troops to Grenada and took a very tough position on the Cold War and massively increased military spending and America's rollback policies around the world. And Reagan's 'morning in America' was about small town virtues.
GOP has always been the religious party, and it was the religious Abolitionists who'd been among its biggest supporters.
The reason why so many religious conservatives of all ethnic groups turned to the GOP was for cultural reasons.
You simply don't know your history.
If anything, the GOP has turned way toward liberalism. It now joins in the MLK cult, and a good number of Republicans have come out in support of something as ridiculous as 'gay marriage'. Imagine Reagan or conservatives--or even most liberals of the 80s--going for that kind of garbage.
And why shouldn't there be anti-immigrationist sentiments? This country has over 300 million people and it's year, and most of them come from the Third World and don't look like core white Americans and they want all sorts of welfare and freebies. Since when is conservatism the same thing as open borders? And what did Reagan gain by his amnesty? NOTHING.

And if you are for fiscal conservatism, do you know why GOP turned away from it? Because of Democratic pressure to offer more freebies to people. Whenever GOP tried to roll this back, they were called 'mean' and 'uncaring' by the liberal media. Bush came up with 'compassionate conservatism' because everyone was saying conservatives need to remake themselves as the party that 'feels your pain'.

So, you need to shut up. You yellas changed to the Dems because you simply wanna be on the winning side of history. Punkass fool.

Captain Toudou said...

"however, the dog whistling on race, immigration and gays"

Suuuuuuure, Democrats never use race-baiting against the GOP. Even though the GOP is far more careful not to sound 'racist', you hear more 'racism' on the right than among blacks, Jews, and Hispanics.
Btw, dummy, most of the anti-Asian stuff in popular culture comes from liberal/Zionist Hollywood. Conservatives didn't make movies like RISING SUN and RED DAWN remake. It's also liberal Jews in Hollywood who've funded 'evil Muslim' movies like TRUE LIES and RULES OF ENGAGEMENT, one of the sickest movies I've ever seen.

White cons have to be the model majority, but non-whites, libs, and Jews can spew all the filth they want.

And what is this stuff about gays? Since when did Asian values have anything to do with the people who stick their sexual organs into fecal holes? What kind of moral or social progress is to equate fecal penetration with real sex? You call yourself a free thinker but you're a just clone of PC.

And what kind of conservatism is predicated on open borders? How can we CONSERVE what this country has been if we allow tens of millions of people--especially from third world countries--to swarm over here?
Would you endorse that sort of thing for Asian nations? Then have millions of Hindus and Africans come to Japan and Korea and Taiwan.

Your freaking problem is the notion of 'rightwing libertarianism'. Libertarianism is selfish individualism. It is anti-rightwing. Libertarian is out for himself. A true rightist is for his people.

Jefferson said...

[QUOTE] am a right-leaning libertarian by nature. in an ideal world, i would have voted for ron paul or gary johnson (again). i also live in a very closely-battled swing state. this time around i voted for obama.[/QUOTE]

You are not a libertarian by any stretch. A true libertarian would have NEVER voted for Barack Obama over Gary Johnson, because Obama does not support small government libertarian values.

Anonymous said...

..."Perhaps the more mathematically-grounded Asian population was especially alarmed by the Romney campaign's mathematically-impossible budget proposals"...

Huh? What's mathematically possible about Obama's budget's? $1.2e12 deficits/year, and his own proposals for taxes on the evil 'rich' only address 10% of this deficit by his own admission.

AA's live in blue areas where they're saturated with MSM non-sense about racist, Bible-thumpers in the backwoods. Apparently they've bought it hook-line and sinker.

We're headed for national catastrophe in 10 years or less, but hey we kept the knuckle-draggers out. Let's go with the party that puts us under in a few years rather than the one which keeps us afloat for 20.

Asian in Red Country

Cail Corishev said...

"A lot of Asian-Americans I know joined the GOP for Reagan in 1980 and stayed there for some time. They slowly quit as the GOP went into directions having nothing whatsoever with fiscal conservatism and law and order, but having everything to do with Jesus, wars, abortion, creationism, anti-immigration sentiments and all kinds of other stuff."

Could you point to a time when the GOP was not primarily Christian, pro-military, anti-abortion, more creationist (whatever that even means today), more pro-immigration, and less concerned about fiscal conservatism and law and order than in the last decade?

I mean, seriously, do you listen to yourself talk? On every issue you listed, since the golden age of 1980 that you cite, the GOP has moved in the direction you support. If you think Reagan and the 1980 GOP were some sort of redoubt of secular libertarianism, you really need to get your memory checked.

Paul Mendez said...

They slowly quit as the GOP went into directions having ...to do with Jesus, wars, abortion, creationism, anti-immigration sentiments and all kinds of other stuff.

If Asians think that Jesus, abortion, and creationism have anything to do with anything, then I'm going to have to re-assess my assumptions about Asians having high IQ's.

And if the GOP were really anti-immigration, I'd be a registered Republican.

(While I'll concede that the GOP has been worse when it comes to "wars" lately, the Democrats' body count over the last 100 years is two orders of magnitude higher -- and Barry still has time to out-do Dubya in bloodshed. If anything, Dubya has forced a level of pacifism on Barry whether he wanted it or not by squandering so much of the military's capabilities in Iraq and Afghanistan.)

Jefferson said...

[QUOTE]So please wake up. Asian-Americans are Dems because that's the lesser of evils. I am willing to bet that MORE THAN HALF of Asian-Americans would go GOP if you took out the Jesus, wars, abortion, creationism, and anti-immigration.[/QUOTE]

You speak of being anti-war as the reason why you do not vote Republican, yet you voted for Barack Obama even though he continues with the drone strikes in Afghanistan.

You are a typical left wing hypocrite.

You might as well come out and say you are only anti-war if it there is a Republican in the oval office, not when there is a Democrat.

If you are truly anti-war, you would have voted for Gary Johnson.

Anonymous said...

Once you get to know the inner workings of their culture (Chinese Americans) you see how they are masters at gaming the system ... why else do other Asians refer to them as "the Jews of the Orient."

Other Asians don't actually refer to them as "the Jews of the Orient". Most Asians don't really know anything about Jews to analogize like that.

The analogy doesn't even make sense since the vast majority of Chinese are farmers or descended from recent farmer stock and are now factory workers.

More recently it's been used to describe certain long-standing mercantile Chinese diaspora communities in SE Asia.

Anonymous said...

China-bashing by gop done it. In Asia, non-Chinese don't like Chinese. In America, attack on China is seen as anti-Asian by all Asians.

Anonymous said...

Dog-whistling, blah blah.

When will Chinese stop dog-eating?

Dahlia said...

Re: Too much God for Asians.

In low crime eras, there is little use for God and order. Nothing I have found illustrates this decadence and accompanying naivete more than the following story of a father cleared of all charges of harming his 13-year-old daughter. The ONE fact in dispute was whether he approached her for sex (indecent assault).

This is not a parody and really happened:

The Hollidaysburg-area father who told a jury that he bought a vibrator for his then-13-year-old daughter was cleared Tuesday of all criminal charges, including dissemination of sex material to a minor.

To reach a guilty verdict on that charge, the jury needed to conclude that the vibrator fit the legal definition of obscene material. After hearing Senior Judge Thomas G. Peoples read the applicable law for the second time, the jury concluded that it didn't.

"It was the right decision," defense attorney Mark Zearfaus said. "Sex toys are not illegal. It may not be advisable to buy one for a teenager, but it's not a crime."

The jury of seven women and five men also acquitted the father on a second charge of disseminating sex material to a minor, based on the daughter's accusation that they watched pornographic movies, and on additional charges of endangering the welfare of a child, corruption of minors and indecent assault.

Assistant District Attorney Dan Kiss said the charges were based on the father's behavior which developed over several months after the daughter began staying with him on weekends in late 2009.

"This man groomed his young daughter to be sexually molested," Kiss said.

The father, who took the witness stand Monday, denied his daughter's accusations. He said he purchased the vibrator after the daughter made repeated requests and told him she feared that she might resume cutting herself intentionally.

http://www.altoonamirror.com/page/content.detail/id/565179.html


jody said...

steve, does it really matter if groups which vote overwhelmingly for the democrats in general, move a few points in either direction? they still vote OVERWHELMINGLY against traditional america. oh wow, look at the jewish vote, it was only 70% against america instead of 80%. that's progress! LOL

Anonymous said...

If significant numbers of non-whites started supporting the Republican Party for whatever reason, it's possible that whites would start withdrawing support for the Republicans in a political "white flight".

Anonymous said...

"Once again, you're free to leave at anytime and raise your children where you feel they would be treated better. But in the meantime, please give me some examples on ways in which asians are not treated like first class citizens in this country"

Fortunately, the "love or or leave it" argument doesn't carry much sway in a time when you can change the country for the better.

If these changes are not conducive to your happiness, you are certainly equally welcome to leave, because unless your name is Sitting Bull or Red Cloud, America is no more blood soil to you than it is to me.

corvinus said...

So please wake up. Asian-Americans are Dems because that's the lesser of evils. I am willing to bet that MORE THAN HALF of Asian-Americans would go GOP if you took out the Jesus, wars, abortion, creationism, and anti-immigration.

I'm with you on the wars bit. But there's a reason white Americans like the GOP's anti-immigration stance, and in fact drove them to it (it is actually only held by the more populist House of Representatives, not so much the pro-business elites in the Senate): We don't think turning the country into an extension of the Third World will improve the country and make it safer, better, and more prosperous for our (or your, for that matter) children.

There's a reason we've been inundated with Latin Americans for decades. Duh.

Although, contrary to common perceptions, the Republican Establishment has actually been worse than the Dems at flooding the country with Latin Americans.

Anonymous said...

Maybe Asians didn't vote for Romney just because they aren't bat-shit insane.

jody said...

"Perhaps the more mathematically-grounded Asian population was especially alarmed by the Romney campaign's mathematically-impossible budget proposals."

so then, it was obama's mathematically sound budgets which appealed to them. yeah ok. LOL.

he keeps blathering about 250000, 250000, 250000. that's not an existing IRS tax bracket. does this guy know anything? his revenue projections are sheer idiocy. 1.6 trillion over 10 years. that's 160 billion a year.

160 billion a year doesn't even put a dent in the budget. it pays down 0 dollars in principle on the debt. it doesn't even pay half the yearly interest on the debt! the US government can't even service the debt with this class warfare tax increase.

if higher taxes are so great, why did obama extend the bush tax cuts? if clinton's years were the halcyon days of the US economy, and it was all due to clinton level taxes, why not just go back to those tax rates? if republicans only care about tax cuts for the rich, why did they reduce tax rates on everybody?

either obama raises taxes on everybody and we get back to the "good old days" of clinton with higher taxes for everbody, or he admits he's a full of it and that the republicans were right, and continue to be right, about this stuff.

"Romney, in trying to pawn himself off as a Protestant, talked about religion all the time."

no he didn't. talking about something a few times now seems to be the same as "all the time" if it's something which the media doesn't like about a republican. their new tactic is to take something somebody else said and project it onto romney. but they don't do this for democrats. the cavalcade of morons in the DNC today say ludicrous, facepalm level stuff regularly now. does that mean that's what obama thinks too? do these preposterous statements not get to become defining parts of the obama administration as well? if not, why not?

"Obama to me was more of a warmonger than Romney."

he's at least equal to GW bush, so how he gets a pass on this stuff, who knows. oh wait, we know. it's because the media wants him to get a pass. they stopped sending photographers to report on the coffins coming back from afghanistan and iraq the day obama took office. the united states is not in a war if you went by the 180 degree change in media coverage after january 2009. but back in the real world, iraq is in a civil war, and the US is actively battling in afghanistan right now, right this second, and is losing about 1 american per day.

"The Romney/Ryan campaign has christian fundamentalist ideology in its core."

it just plain didn't, unless we're now going the tea party route on romney's campaign by smearing it as just a bunch of racist white christians. and romney is a mormon. that's far from mainstream or fundamentalist. if anything, that turned off fundamentalist christians.

the people who want to get america back on track do largely happen to be conservative european christians, although this isn't the identity they are trying to force down anybody's throat and they welcome anyone who is receptive to their message of self reliance, law and order, and moderate fiscal responsibility - they aren't even really pushing serious financial restraint, just proposing pulling back from the sheer idiocy of obama's profligate spending and economic incompetence.

jody said...

"Asian may be with Republican in some issues, but disagree on many issues with the Republicans, particularly some of the social agenda, like increasing military spending"

1) the defense department budget is not a social issue. defense is one of the united states federal government's few legitimate functions. like securing the nation's borders. which democrats now seem to think is optional.

is this the new battle in the language war? anything which republicans are interested in is now a "social issue" which they need to drop? is "social issue" a new code word for republican idea which is self evidently stupid?

2) obama not only has maintained GW bush military spending levels, he has increased it, and expanded US military adventurism.

all the screaming about bush spending too much money on wars ended immediately after obama took office, despite obama proceeding to spend not only just as much money on wars, but more than bush.

"Wah wah, Bush is spending 100 billion a year on wars!" so is obama, except, actually, he's spending more than that. when he could just end them by snapping his fingers. instead he continues to spend the same amount of money as bush, and get americans killed, and it's all for no good reason at all, but he is somehow never criticized for it.

"Once you get to know the inner workings of their culture (Chinese Americans) you see how they are masters at gaming the system"

this is what i said in a previous thread. it's an easy pros and cons decision for east asians, southeast asians, and south asians. on the detriment side, voting democrat does lock in higher taxes on their productive businesses, and permanent affirmative action discrimination against them and their children. on the benefit side, voting democrat destroys the ethnic identity of the united states, opens it up for plunder, and makes it a free for all, where the various asian groups can flood in and set up shop. the calculus is easy. voting democrat is the better long term strategy. the moderate detriments of higher tax rates and affirmative action can be stomached in exchange for long run ethnic invasion and victory.

"my point is that the Republicans do have a "creep factor" problem with non-Christians"

why do all africans, who are religious nutjobs, and most mexicans, who are nominally catholic, vote for the godless athiest democrat party then?

the fact is it has NOTHING to do with religion, and EVERYTHING to do with them just plain hating european men. they don't like the democrat anti-christian pro-gay agenda, but they hate europeans more.

i grew up around africans. they are christian zealots. praise the lord, hallelujah. let's go sing at the church, jody! praise god, praise jesus. whenever anything happens to an african athlete the first thing he says is "First i want to thank God". and now you have jamie foxx calling obama "Our Lord and Savior".

so really, what goes on in their heads? do you actually think this is their thought process: "Oh, those republicans are TOO christian for me! I'm voting democrat because I don't want God in my life. By the way, thank God for Obama. Praise the Lord, thank you Jesus."

Anonymous said...

East Asians are voting for the interests of East Asia. Remember Richard Nixon, a Republican, opened up China. Western companies couldn't move operations to China faster and cause the great economic prosperity they enjoy today. Richard Nixon ended the Vietnam War. Bill Clinton, a Democrat, pushed for China to get permanent status in the WTO and signed free trade agreements. The rise of China and the GOP's recognizition that they pose a threat has turned East Asians away from the GOP even further. East Asians want Americans to see China's rise as a totally great thing and turn a blind eye to it's increased military spending, cyber attacks,intellectual theft and spying. Obama, a Democrat, signed a free trade agreement with Korea in 2010.

jody said...

"It's the social issues, stupid."

nope. the republicans can move to any platform, drop any issue or every issue, and pick up any issue, and they will still be crushed in 2016. it has nothing to do with the issues, period, as we can see from the quality of the comments in this thread. obama is worse than the republicans on almost any issue the anti-republican posters have brought up.

"his conservative views didn't change. What changed was the GOP."

total BS. i hear this BS a lot. i think americans are just getting stupider, or more likely, brainwashed. the GOP has been moving to the left for decades. i LOL when i hear it has become MORE rightwing. that's utter crap.

your father is not a "potential republican voter" whatsoever if he thinks the democrats are the better party in 2012. that's sheer nonsense. keeping the wars going instead of ending them, suing one of america's own states so they aren't allowed to defend themselves from the immivasion, killing US citizens without even giving them a trial, not having a budget in FOUR YEARS, and going another 6 billion in debt which is more debt in 4 years than GW bush took on in 8 years, is supposed be the smarter, more prudent direction?

arlen specter tried this line of bull a couple years ago and it's so much garbage. what really happened is that the democrats have moved WAY, WAY to the left over the last
30 years and the republicans haven't moved as far to the left as that, so now completely reasonable positions like stopping illegal immigration are seen as "far right loony stuff" and "anti-immigrant".

yet by the democrats own standards, GW bush would have to be viewed as extremely pro-immigrant, since he deliberately flooded the US with mexicans and even tried to get them all amnestied multiple times. what a racist! what an anti-immigrant zealot that GW bush was!

how about when he sued NYFD for having too many crackers! what a racist! appointing colin powell and condolezza rice to secretary of state was a straight up racist move. he sure didn't care about education of the young vibrant americans with that no child left behind business either. these republicans, my goodness. incorrigible racists, the lot of them.

x said...

jody is one of my favourite commenters on this site, with svigor, praise the lord, hallelujah.

vinteuil said...

Anonymous @ 8:44 & 10:26 a.m. (presumably the same person) has got to be the most hilariously obvious concern troll I've ever seen at his exercise.

I mean, like Romney & Ryan talked more about "Jesus" than Reagan did. And they war-mongered more than he did. And they made a bigger stink about abortion than he did. And of course they went on and on and on about "creationism," while Reagan was a big 'ole Darwinian. And "staple a green card to their graduation certificate" Mitt Romney was a big-time opponent of Asian immigration to the U.S....

Really, anybody who's taken in by such transparent b.s. is too stupid to live.

As is anybody who thinks that anybody with a single libertarian bone in his body could possibly pull the lever for Obama.

Anonymous said...

@mr. sailer

your "citizenism" is probably the most realistic and pragmatic compromise on the national question, but you probably won't get much support of that even from your own readers/fans on your own blog. that is regrettable.

@everyone else

if you want to understand why asians lurched even further leftward for obama, you need no more than read the racist, nativist, poorly-informed and cognitively-impaired comments right here in this thread. looks like pretty rocky soil for mr. sailer to be planting the seeds of his big ideas.

unix said...

" am Asian-American, came to this country at age one.

Steve Sailer needs to stop spinning hypotheses in his head and go out and talk with Asian-Americans, lots of them. If he did, he would know what I know.'

This "am Asian-American, came to this country at age one" sounds v. much like "authentic asian american" who probably came here a bit latter. "authentic asian american" uses a few more carefully placed Asianisms.

Smack me metaphorically should I be wrong, but I smell the blood of an Obot, not an Asian. And if you really are an Asian for Obama, well, you're just proving our points. Now what are those ways in which you're discriminated against?

TWTS said...

"Fortunately, the "love or or leave it" argument doesn't carry much sway in a time when you can change the country for the better."

You didnt give me any examples of how asians arent treated well in this country. How do you plan on changing the country for the better? If white America is so bigoted, why do you want to continue to flood the country with non-whites? And why should white Americans want to flood the country with asians when the majority of Asian countries are poorly run dumps?

Anonymous said...

"As is anybody who thinks that anybody with a single libertarian bone in his body could possibly pull the lever for Obama."

It was a hard decision. I voted for Ron Paul in 2008 and donated to him and his son before Rand went full neocon.

However, the sheer racism and nativism on display during the last 4 years convinced me that all my concerns about the Fed destroying the financial foundations of the country, war mongering without end, erosions of constitutional protections of privacy, encroachment of executive power on legislative war powers, etc. must be put on hold because I am far more concerned about how an RR victory might energize the likes of some of the racists right here in this comment thread. I want them to lose. I want them to stay disheartened, stay home and eventually die out and get replaced with more reasonable people.

I am not willing to engage on the aforesaid issues unless I am sure that I am living in a country where people who look like me cannot get beaten to death by a couple of Detroit drunks and have my murderers let off scot-free; that I cannot be stripped of my constitutional rights as an American citizen and get tossed in a concentration camp for four years after selling my worldly goods to vultures at firesale prices and have nothing but a $20K check for it four decades later; that my children won't be taking beatings from packs of cowardly racist bullies like I did.

I hope after enough poundings at the national level of electoral politics, you dead-enders will finally get the hint and accept that we are going to stay a multiethnic society for good and that you have no more right to tell people to "go home" than for red indians to tell YOU to "go home." The country, whose complexion you hate, is now reality. It is a fait accompli. Get used to it. A lifetime is a long time to be angry.

Anonymous said...

"But I ask the question again, now that non-Europeans have sent more immigrants than Europeans, when can we turn off the spigot?"

That is a question to be decided by a democratically-elected legislature. They have decided upon the present levels of intake. If you are so terribly concerned about the numbers and compositions of present immigrants, you are still free to vote for electoral candidates who share your views. In a democracy you don't always get what you want.

Anonymous said...

If you think Reagan and the 1980 GOP were some sort of redoubt of secular libertarianism, you really need to get your memory checked.

They were, compared to the modern GOP. I wouldn't go so far as to say the Old Grand Ol' Party were libertarian; but most of their platform was reducing non-military government, as well as cutting taxes and cutting the more wasteful social programs. Even their religious ramblings were pure Cold War ecumenism: religious people of all faiths united against Godless Communism.

Anonymous said...

I think the Obama microtargeting campaign did an amazing job spreading the meme among young people that it wasn't cool to be Republican. I bet younger Asian-American voters fell for this in the same way other young voters appear to have.

Lucius said...

For some of those talking up the "scary" Bible-thumping and "dog whistling" of the Romney-era GOP, let me throw in my own lilywhite anecdotage.

I was a flaming "out" atheist in high school, in GHW Bush rural post-Confederate America.

There were a couple of amusing altercations, yes; but no physical intimidation, no death threats, no nooses, no-- what is it you expect to see, anyway? Burning crosses on your lawn?

All my peers were Christians of some sort or another, many eagerly concerned for my soul. But that's it. People being concerned for your soul is surprisingly weightless, in terms of socialization. It's just a thing. I argued metaphysics freely with plenty of friends. I read Nietzsche in detention when I had too many tardies.

I also threw out Taoism and the Bhagavad-Gita just for variety's sake (atheism, pantheism-- I was a teen).

Our purported Asian-Americans' comments don't ring thoughtful or true to me. Southern Protestants don't go burning heretics. Militant securalists need to get over themselves. What melodrama!

And yes: how many more tens or hundreds of millions of immigrants do we need to sign up for Club America membership benefits before we're *done*, in the fashionable view? Just everyone?

vinteuil said...

Anonymous @ 4:08 & 4:20 p.m. (again, presumably, the same person) - well, I suppose one has to admire your sheer singleness of purpose.

"I voted for Ron Paul in 2008 and donated to him and his son before Rand went full neocon."

Well, as the Iron Duke is supposed to have said, "anyone who would believe that would believe anything."

I guess it just escaped your notice when guys like Peter Brimelow, Steve Sailer, John Derbyshire, etc. got cast into outer darkness by the "conservative" establishment. So far as you're concerned, we "nativists" (we few, we horrid few) are running the G.O.P. show.

Seriously: who do you think you're fooling? Is somebody paying you for this? Or do you actually do it for free?

Anonymous said...


2) obama not only has maintained GW bush military spending levels, he has increased it, and expanded US military adventurism.

all the screaming about bush spending too much money on wars ended immediately after obama took office, despite obama proceeding to spend not only just as much money on wars, but more than bush.

"Wah wah, Bush is spending 100 billion a year on wars!" so is obama, except, actually, he's spending more than that. when he could just end them by snapping his fingers. instead he continues to spend the same amount of money as bush, and get americans killed, and it's all for no good reason at all, but he is somehow never criticized for it.



Lots of liberals criticize Obama's pro-war stance. Try looking at a liberal site sometime. It's possible that Romney wouldn't have been much worse than Obama on war, but he certainly gave off that impression (surrounded himself with extremely pro-war neocons, for instance). And if you're going to talk about how pro-war Obama is, then please be willing to admit that the Republican presidents have been as bad if not worse than Democrats on immigration over the last 50 years, a trend which Romney would have continued.

Romney basically sucked on pretty much every issue, but some of you really want to view him (and his supporters) with rose-colored glasses. It's mind-boggling how so many conservatives (even paleocons and WNs) have turned this election between two practically identical candidates into the ultimate battle between good and evil. Get serious.

Anonymous said...

Ultimately everyone, from left to right, white to non-white, seems to assume that the Republicans are or are supposed to be the implicitly white party. Democrats sometimes explicitly say this about the Republicans. And the rest of the time the Dems are suggesting or implying it. The hard right says that the Republicans are the implicitly white party, even if they disagree with the GOP or feel that it doesn't actually represent whites properly. So everyone is told in some fashion that the Republicans are the implicitly white party and that they don't like non-whites, regardless of whether this is true or not. Presumably non-whites hear this and agree, especially since even if they disagreed, they'd still have the nagging feeling that it's true, since it's what lots of people say and since you wouldn't know otherwise because people generally don't say they don't like you out loud.

ben tillman said...

That is a question to be decided by a democratically-elected legislature. They have decided upon the present levels of intake. If you are so terribly concerned about the numbers and compositions of present immigrants, you are still free to vote for electoral candidates who share your views. In a democracy you don't always get what you want.

You're a moron. The "democratically-elected legislature" did not decide on the present level of intake.

Lucius said...

--I would add that this triumphalism, with its not unexpected undercurrent of ill-defined grievance, exemplified in:

'we are going to stay a multiethnic society for good and that you have no more right to tell people to "go home" than for red indians to tell YOU to "go home." The country, whose complexion you hate, is now reality. It is a fait accompli. Get used to it. A lifetime is a long time to be angry.'

--seems particularly out of place for anyone who reads here with any regularity.

Besides the fact that Anglo-Americans invested centuries of toil and bloodshed into erecting a Lockean-Jeffersonian democracy here in accordance with their highly evolved notions of organized liberty, there is the fact that it is this very system of prosperity and freedom which allures new and alien newcomers; that the author of the above quote pretends to support a "fiscal conservatism" which is part of the original credo of that system, undermined by these dependent new arrivals; that the Hispanic and African legs of this vaunted new multiethnic fait accompli cannot well sustain this or any system of prosperity or limited government, for considerations detailed in the annals of isteve; and furthermore are vastly more antagonistic to Asians' interests than the most retrograde of European-Americans-- all of which makes the purported Asian-American poster's anti-Christian paranoia and almost sexualized thrill of exhaltation in the 'complexion' of a Balkanized, welfare-dependent America whose more colorful colors little value his own contribution and may well do violence to his heirs-- curious, to say the least.

Frankly, you sound gay. There's a whiff of "daddy issues" with this improbable Reaganite father, tolerated only now that he's been browbeaten, perhaps, by the son into submission to the present "complexion" of things.

Also: "*red* Indians?" That's racist. Don't come here and pick on *our* Noble Savages. . . .

unix said...

"easonable people.

"I am not willing to engage on the aforesaid issues unless I am sure that I am living in a country where people who look like me cannot get beaten to death by a couple of Detroit drunks and have my murderers let off scot-free"

Well one reason whites don't "go home" is because we built this country and we've been here a few hundred years. So have blacks actually. We built it. Hear that Obama?
The labor was partly black in the South, Chinese in the Western railorads; but overwhelmingly, you are here because of what white people built. You need us. We don't need you. Brutal but true. Now does that mean we don't want you? I actually like variety. I just don't want to be overwhelmed by millions of people whose primary loyalty is to their own race, while racial solidarity is forbidden to whites. It only works when EVERYBODY agrees. You can't vote for BO because he's black, and not be race-driven.
As far as your crime story, white on non-white crime is rare.,and when it occurs, is constantly broadcast. The same week as the black dragging victim years ago, a little white boy was dragged to death by blacks. I'm sure you never heard of it. Heard of the Knoxville horror? These are just two cases. Whites who live in almost any "vibrant" area have been victimized. Overwhelmingly whites are the victims of interracial crime. I myself was almost murdered by blacks; friends sons, notably non-racist, were beaten almost to death by packs of blacks.
The idea that "people who look like you" are somehow in grave danger from uncensored white racists is absurd. You exactly illustrate why people here are so disgusted. The statistics have been as widely discussed here as they have been hidden in the media. Indeed, strange white people have even asked Matt Drudge to stop posting crimes involving blacks. Certain whites, jewish & gentile, are really bent on racial suicide. That should please you. But it only increases the sentiments expressed by people you read here. We are increasing in numbers. It's inevitable.
America has always been "multi"but We already have taken in as many immigrants since 1965 as Europe sent since 1675. Any white person with common sense would think twice about welcoming people whose main loyalty is not to America (regardless of race, creed, color) but to their own race. Many white people, myself included, have thought as you think we should. Humbly welcoming anyone not "like us" and giving all we once owned to them to the extent possible. I see separation in the future. When whites are a minority, will we get affirmative action in the colleges we built, the industries and services we invented? One thing I know. I won't be begging it from people who look like you. And to think I once was the most flaming liberal, love-everybody-especially-poc, person you could imagine.
You sound like someone from the Democratic national coalition to get Obama re-elected, still trolling websites that were honest about loathing him, and gave sensible reasons for it. I don't care who you vote for, but I do know I won't have my kids give up their jobs, their schools, their very lives, for you. I see separation. You can have this country. It won't be the same country without whites anyway. You can turn parts of it into India or Mexico or Uganda or whatever non-whitey country you want to reproduce. We'll take another part and start over. On a whimsical note, I'd like to take the Capitol and the Library of Congress with us though. I'd hate to see them turn into the ruins of Detroit.
That's a good website btw. The Ruins of Detroit.

Anonymous said...

"Seriously: who do you think you're fooling? Is somebody paying you for this? Or do you actually do it for free?"

I didn't come aboard to watch the likes of you sputter in incoherent rage, but I am learning to enjoy it.

Sailer asked why. Several Asian Americans came in with responses. Why on an anonymous board anyone would choose to lie, beats me. I stated my reasons for going for Obama in lieu of Romney in the clearest terms possible.

And here's the thing. Even if "we" voted for Romney, bigots like you would continue to go on as you are. You refuse to believe that any non-white can be as human as you. That we can have the full range of cognitive and emotional subtlty, and can have as complex reasons for our voting behavior as any white demographic.

The short answer to why the GOP's Asian vote dropped 9 points is no simpler than why the GOP's white vote went up 4 points.

The racism and bigotry outside of the US is in many ways more limiting than it is here. People worldwide envy the way in which persons of different ethnicities get along in relative harmony here. For me, this is something worth building on. Even in the last few decades, I have seen changes in attitudes I would have never believed possible when I first came here. For that reason, I choose to stay because I believe this country can be turned into a yet more tolerant and decent place.

The remaining obstacle is people like you. I have met many like you. You assume, based on some loony tunes physiognomistally-inspired concept of race that based on my facial features you can deduce the essence of my worldview, my personality, and political inclinations. Just look at this thread. All this reference to Confucianism, as if an Asian American kid raised and educated here has one iota of a clue who or what Confucius was. If you have a drop of German or English blood, might I use some trivia about Hengest or Bede to encapsulate you? It's not even insulting. It's just ridiculous.

People like you annoy and disturb me. It is in my interest that people who openly espouse your racial worldview have as little power as possible. I would also, like any white libertarian, not be groped at airports or subject to porno scans. I would also like for the Fed not to crush the value of my savings and my parents' fixed retirement income, while driving up my gas and grocery bills. I would also like to not live in an executive dicatatorship where war making powers have been usurped from Congress and the President can summarily execute US citizens at will, globally, without due process of law.

But in a Maslowian sense, basic security must be secured before the higher-order self-actualization of life can be sought. And for me, and people who look like me, basic security means squashing people like you politically, and replacing you with people who can play well with others

Anonymous said...

"You're a moron. The "democratically-elected legislature" did not decide on the present level of intake."

The moron is you. The laws were passed by Congress in 1965 re-balancing the national origin quotas of immigration policy. If you're talking about illegal immigration, that's a separate matter. I was responding to a post about throttling back regular immigration.

Live with it. Or stay angry and die younger from stress. I'm fine with it either way.

Anonymous said...

And McCain didn't seem like he'd Bomb Bomb Bomb, Bomb Bomb Iran?

McCain and Palin did not make it the centerpiece of their campaign in the way that Romney did. Nor did he appoint John Bolton – who publicly advocated a nuclear first strike on Iran – to a prominent role in his campaign. http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2009/10/tape-bolton-israel-should-nuke-iran In 2008, the Republicans did not blanket Florida with billboards reminding people that they support Israel and accusing their opponents of disloyalty to Israel.

In 2008, the Republican “experts” did not assume that all Christians – mainline Protestant, Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Evangelical – shared the Zionist tendencies of evangelicals and shills such as Pastor Hagee. Some of the Eastern Orthodox congregations in states such as Wisconsin and Ohio have contentious relationships with neoconservative groups over the relentless harassment of Orthodox Christians by both Israeli settlers and the Israeli government; the decades-long persecution of John Demjanjuk; and other issues. Many Catholics remembered that Pope John Paul II spoke out against the 2003 Iraq War. So, the Republicans emphasized economic growth and social issues (e.g., abortion) in states such as Ohio.

In 2012, the Republican brain trust seemed to conflate Christianity with a love of Israel (and bombing Iran) and deemed anyone who argued otherwise an antisemite to be ignored. They similarly engaged in a high-profile purge of Ron Paul supporters and others who criticized the idea of attacking Iran. The Democrats, OTOH, ran a highly sophisticated micro-targeting campaign that told both pro- and anti-war Democrats what they wanted to hear.

Anonymous said...

"Well one reason whites don't "go home" is because we built this country and we've been here a few hundred years. So have blacks actually. We built it."

You are assuming that the country has been built once and for all. It continues to be built in places like Silicon Valley and Route 128 that are driving the 21st century economy. I know it well enough to know that it's not all Mayflower-descendants working there.

It's funny when people like you disclaim blame for slavery, indian removal, etc. but try to claim credit for things you've never done with this "we" built it gibberish.

I'm home. I'm quite happy here. Coming to the US was the best decision I ever made. On a purely ethnic level, I have friendships and working relationships with a range of whites, blacks, hispanics and asians of other types that I never would have had in the country of my birth. And because I have these relationships, I know, for instance, that the mainstream of white people aren't so nearly as small-minded as you. The counterexamples far overwhelm the angry, bitter little minority. Where the likes of you still has any power at all, you still do cause trouble. But your kind is dying off, politically. When you are completely powerless, we will all be better off for it.

Anonymous said...

And McCain didn't seem like he'd Bomb Bomb Bomb, Bomb Bomb Iran?

There was also the military service issue.

John McCain was a Vietnam vet, while Mittens was successfully portrayed as serial draft dodger who obtained deferments so he could spend time traveling in France while someone less privileged was drafted in his place. Many Americans wondered why someone who would lead protests in favor of the Vietnam war would then petition to be excused from military service on religious grounds.

Sarah Palin was also someone who working-class Whites could relate to: she supported blue-collar jobs such as oil drilling, supported hunting, and had a son serving in the Army. While some media elites looked down on her son being an enlisted infantryman, it helped avoid the accusations of chicken-hawkery that followed Romney and Paul Ryan.

In 2012, the Romney campaign gave a prominent role to Dan Senor, a Bush-era neocon who gained notoriety as the chief propagandist of and spokesman for the Coalition Provisional Authority overseeing the occupation of Iraq. After the Bush administration, Senor wrote a book ,Startup Nation: The Story of Israel's Economic Miracle , which argues that America should reinstate conscription and generally become more like Israel. http://original.antiwar.com/smith-grant/2011/03/27/neoconomics%C2%A0conscription-and-war-as-wealth/ The Obama campaign and the media constantly reminded voters that a vote for Romney was, in effect, a vote to bring people such as Senor back into positions of authority. Politico predicted that Senor would, in a Romney administration, likely wind up as either Chief of Staff, Deputy Chief of Staff, or National Security Advisor. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/washington-spectator/why-is-failed-iraq-neocon_b_1962721.html

The idea that Romney might reinstate the draft – when neither he, his children, nor people such as Senor had ever served in the military – outraged many working-class voters. The Vietnam war taught us that the ruling class will never allow their children to be used as cannon fodder in wars; no, they send their children to the Ivy League while demanding that other parents sacrifice their children.

vinteuil said...

@ lucius:

"I was a flaming 'out' atheist...

...All my peers were Christians of some sort or another, many eagerly concerned for my soul. But that's it. People being concerned for your soul is surprisingly weightless..."

Precisely my own experience.

Believing Christians (to say nothing of Mormons!) are about as scary, and about as effectual, these days, as a cup of Taster's Choice decaf.

But the weaker they get, the more furiously they are reviled.

Such is the way of the world.

Cail Corishev said...

"however, the dog whistling on race, immigration and gays from the likes of bachmann, gingrich and santorum were repulsive to me, and most people like me that i know."

Except that this never happened. So what you're revealing here is that the media suckered you and your friends by appealing to your fears and prejudices, and convinced you that something happened for which there was never any evidence, thus getting you to vote for the party that sees you as useful idiots who will be lined right up against the wall with the whites once they don't need your numbers anymore.

Congratulations. At least you don't have to worry about having a "creationist" president!

Cail Corishev said...

'My wife voted for Obama in large part because of Romney's "God Talk."'

But Obama claimed to be a Christian and spent all those years (plus thousands of dollars) in Rev. Wright's church to prove it, and he threw around the "God Talk" too. All politicians do. Why is it people who don't like religion get offended when Republicans talk about it but not when Democrats do?

Easy: they already want to vote Democrat, so they're looking for something to dislike about the Republican.

Reason 2: they think Obama is faking it, so his saying it doesn't scare them. That means they're intentionally voting for a liar -- a liar about religion, something most people consider extremely important. So that's nice.

Anonymous said...

I am not sure which physicist said this (Pauli or Heisenberg?), but it was someting like new theories do not come to be believed by, but it is that their doubters die off and are replaced.

This is kind of the way cultural marxism works. They are in the universities peddling the "diversity is our strength" idea. I see no countervailing force outside of little outposts in the online communities, like this. I don't see white America going the Jared Taylor nationalism route. It's not in their nature. I think they will just quietly surrender and turn into Brazil.

Cail Corishev said...

"They were, compared to the modern GOP. I wouldn't go so far as to say the Old Grand Ol' Party were libertarian; but most of their platform was reducing non-military government, as well as cutting taxes and cutting the more wasteful social programs."

No. To the extent that they didn't talk about some social issues as much then, it's because the Democrats hadn't gone as extreme the other way yet, so they weren't in contention. There was no partial-birth abortion to fight over, for instance. Any Democrat would have laughed in your face for suggesting that homosexuals should be allowed to marry. The GOP's stance on those issues hasn't changed at all except where it's softened; the rest of the country has been dragged far to the left on them by the media, so now they're under more discussion.

To make it obvious: hang out with pro-lifers for a while and see how upset they are with the GOP for doing almost nothing about abortion for the past forty years, even when they've had the majority. Ask how many of them stayed home this time because they're fed up with inaction, and were convinced that Romney's pro-life stance was mostly pretense to get the nomination.

So pro-lifers are pissed at the GOP for doing nothing and nominating leaders that are getting less and less genuinely pro-life, and yet we've got secularists telling us the GOP keeps beating the abortion drum louder and louder. They can't both be right. I suspect that the people who really care deeply about the issue -- as opposed to those who sneer about it -- have a better handle on where the truth lies.

Anonymous said...

That is a question to be decided by a democratically-elected legislature. They have decided upon the present levels of intake. If you are so terribly concerned about the numbers and compositions of present immigrants, you are still free to vote for electoral candidates who share your views. In a democracy you don't always get what you want.

Presumably from you answer you are supportive of the current system. Could you please let me know what you would consider an optimal population level of the USA and a demographic breakdown of such.

For example, I prefer the demographics of the late 1960s with 88% of the population being of European descent, and total population being around 200 million. Today our population is around 310 million and the percentage of Europeans is down to 65%. I don't like this because each voter is now less important since congressional districts have had to accomodate more voters. Remember when we had 200 million people, we still had 100 Senators and 435 Representatives. Today with fifty percent more people we have the same amount of representation. So we are being watered down. Any increase to 350 million, 400 million etc., will further erode the importance of the voter.

Second, I feel the lower level of Europeans is not good given they settled, founded and built this nation. It is sort of like how the liberals view man-made climate change. They say they can't be sure it is happening, but we should be safe than sorry and act accordingly. Similarly, even if you do not believe importing third worlders to replace the Europeans is necessarily going to lead to a worse off nation, shouldn't we err on the side of being safe rather than sorry? After all, European America sent a man to the moon and back and was the envy of the world. Even if third worlders were every bit the equal of Europeans in terms of their civilizing influence, isn't it too much to expect that they could continue to replicate the past success of America? That's a lot of pressure. It's like taking over the coaching job after some legend like John Wooden retires. No matter how good you are, you can never quite fill his shoes.

Of course it is not exactly like we have to make this choice overnight. We have had about 40 years of population replacement and are scheduled for another 30 to seal the deal. Given our track record over the past couple of decades, it is clear the third worlders are not going to duplicate European achievement. Isn't it best we cut our losses now and try to repair the damage that has been done, instead of blindly proceeding?

So if you don't mind, please let me know what your plans for the USA population are in terms of absolute number and percentages of Europeans and others.

Cail Corishev said...

"Believing Christians (to say nothing of Mormons!) are about as scary, and about as effectual, these days, as a cup of Taster's Choice decaf."

Thank you for the dose of reality. One of the strangest aspects of modern politics (and best evidence of the media/Hollywood control over mainstream thinking) is this supposed fear of Christians getting in charge and doing ... something, I'm not sure what. Words like "creationist" are thrown around as if they're self-evidently scary, so no one has to bother explaining what's scary about them.

On abortion, the biggest issue for serious Christians, they've been able to accomplish ... well, nothing, really. They've had some successes at the local level, but nationally, even the judicial appointees of their own chosen presidents won't return the issue to the states, so judicial fiat keeps it legal always and everywhere with whatever method you like to use. When a Republican gets elected, he stops some of the funding of foreign abortion at least, but that gets restored the day a Democrat gets in there. So all this scary power Christians have, applied to the most important issue, has resulted in 40 years of losing. With enemies like that, what are these people worried about?

Anonymous said...

You are assuming that the country has been built once and for all. It continues to be built in places like Silicon Valley and Route 128 that are driving the 21st century economy. I know it well enough to know that it's not all Mayflower-descendants working there.

Why did you immigrate to the Silicon Valley area? Who created it? Early pioneers like David Packard and Bill Hewlett were not very vibrant. Leland Stanford, whose English ancestors came here in the 1600s, founded that great university that is the heart of Silicon Valley. I think Euro Americans have every right to be proud of Silicon Valley.

Yes we understand that many people from around the world now work in and contribute to Silicon Valley. This is no different than the USA as a whole. Europeans built it and others are now coming. Some are contributing, a lot are not.

ben tillman said...

So everyone is told in some fashion that the Republicans are the implicitly white party and that they don't like non-whites...

No. That is a ludicrous non-sequitur. Defending your self-interest does not imply that you don't like others.

Anonymous said...

No. That is a ludicrous non-sequitur. Defending your self-interest does not imply that you don't like others.

Why did you not quote the rest of the sentence:

"So everyone is told in some fashion that the Republicans are the implicitly white party and that they don't like non-whites, regardless of whether this is true or not."

Jefferson said...

[QUOTE]It's mind-boggling how so many conservatives (even paleocons and WNs) have turned this election between two practically identical candidates into the ultimate battle between good and evil. Get serious.[/QUOTE]

If you believe Romney and Obama are practically identical, why did you still vote for Barack Obama over Gary Johnson or some other 3rd party candidate ? Why did you vote for Obama if he has the same political views as the guy that you hate which is Mitt Romney ?

If you think Obama is the same as Romney and there for you do not agree with Obama on most political issues, than you voted for Obama simply for racial reasons.

You are Asian and there for a Nonwhite, so you like the idea of seeing another Nonwhite in the oval office.

You voting for Obama is your way of saying screw you Whitey, we Nonwhites are taking over.

You are a typical Nonwhite voter who believes in and promotes racial identity politics.



Anonymous said...

No. That is a ludicrous non-sequitur. Defending your self-interest does not imply that you don't like others.

People are told in some fashion that the Republicans are the implicitly white party and that therefore it's not for non-whites, non-whites aren't welcome, that they don't like non-whites, etc.

It's not a non-sequitur. It's a robust empirical finding in social identity theory. People really do dislike the other "teams", even when the "teams" are organized around something arbitrary like football teams or color shirts.

Anonymous said...

I like the jews the Palestinians always have the left to support them. As for the Eastern Orthodox they are usually liberal on fiscal maatters. They like a bigger welfare state some grandpa came from the old country and voted for FDR.

Anonymous said...

I don't always like Evanglelicals but they are mild compared to some in Islam that would killed you over a cartoon, or a movie. Go to Western Europe and find out how tolerate Islam is.

Anonymous said...

A couple of observations here.

Title to America was brought up. When the English, Scots, and Irish first started coming here, it was to take up inhabitation in areas left abandoned by the American Indians due to reduction in their numbers from disease prior to contact with the Britons. Empty land belongs to whoever has the ability to take it, use it, and civilize it. In moving here, they were not "immigrating", but rather "colonizing", as they never left their country ort ook up another nationality, England having asserted government control via discovery and enforced this claim through victory in war and legitimate purchase when required. By virtue of these things, the descendants of the people involved became native born Americans and were the founders of this country.

Asians obviously have no such original title to occupancy in America. They are here because we graciously have allowed it, not because they had some sort of natural right to inhabitation and citizenship. There is simply no comparison because we are NOT "all immigrants".

I personally think that a lot of Asian bitterness towards whites and Republicans comes from white people marrying (i.e. stealing) so many of "their" women. At the end of the day, most Asians are going to end up being interbred into the general white populace (the women) or being genetic dead ends (the men), just like most American Indians were already, and there won't be a recognizable "Asian" group in the numbers anywhere near what it should be if they had kept themselves apart. The Asian failure to have large families will also play into this just as it is for Jews. I have never met an Asian family with more than 3 kids, and most have only one or two. In the white population, a relatively large proportion of children comes from the relatively small number of families with 3, 4, 5, 6, or more children.

Anonymous said...

Putting aside the Cuban there is no immigrant group that is a natural GOP constituency. It is in the rational interest of conservative politics that we restrict the flow in toto.

We are a nation and society built on law, however, and it is not in our national character to engage in expulsionism, Operations Wetback I and II notwithstanding.

We can try to appeal to the self-interest of the ones already here by telling them that their wages are just as depressed by newcomers, and so forth. But if the Hispanic chain immigration dynamic is the model, no immigrant group would be swayed by such a narrow economic interest.

2012 may be the year that Asians woke up to the way that the race and immigration game is really played in America.

Anonymous said...

"Defending your self-interest does not imply that you don't like others."

Surely. But nicknaming yourself after ol' Pitchfork Ben already tells us much about how you feel about "others." There is nothing wrong with disliking others, but you have to articulate good reasons.

David said...

The explanation could be that Romney was a bad candidate.

Anonymous said...

..."Confucianism, as if an Asian American kid raised and educated here has one iota of a clue who or what Confucius was"...

True, my parents never mentioned Confucius. It's only as an adult do I recognize how much it did influence their outlook and their parenting skills. The big statism and "how can I fit into the system" rather than how can I make my own way really was a part of their thinking. Ignore the WN insults about Asian culture being uncreative, they're flat wrong, but the Confuciusist outlook is there, inasmuch nominal Christianity is still an influence in the western world.

Japan is and China prior to the Qings/Communists are(were) very creative places. Creativity in a society is a fleeting thing. I think American society is entering a creativity funk. I know I'm involved in a tech/sci field. I find the Brits much more innovative. I publish in British journals and consult in Europe as the American lunkheads in my field are too busy protecting turf. A very American thing of late.

Anonymous said...

"I personally think that a lot of Asian bitterness towards whites and Republicans comes from white people marrying (i.e. stealing) so many of "their" women." - Then they should support the republicans on their (weak willed)patriarchal social issues. abortion in particular should be the last thing they want.

I doubt that they oppose the social issues that much however, and that this is more reflexive tribalism than anything else.

Anonymous said...

When the English, Scots, and Irish first started coming here, it was to take up inhabitation in areas left abandoned by the American Indians due to reduction in their numbers from disease prior to contact with the Britons.

It's believed the diseases did come from contact with British and other European ships. Rats from the ships spread to the animals and water in the New World and introduced their diseases.

Anonymous said...

Asians obviously have no such original title to occupancy in America. They are here because we graciously have allowed it, not because they had some sort of natural right to inhabitation and citizenship. There is simply no comparison because we are NOT "all immigrants".

You've said that there is no natural right here. That it's just a matter of occupying a piece of land and not taking up another nationality. That is what people are saying many "immigrants" are in fact doing. That they're not "immigrants" but that they're "colonizers".

Truth said...

"The explanation could be that Romney was a bad candidate."

Naaaah, no way, Dave, that would be way to simple, LOL.

Anonymous said...

The Asian failure to have large families will also play into this just as it is for Jews. I have never met an Asian family with more than 3 kids, and most have only one or two. In the white population, a relatively large proportion of children comes from the relatively small number of families with 3, 4, 5, 6, or more children.

This affects not just Jews and Asians but whites also. Family formation is difficult for many whites as well. If a large proportion of children are coming from a small number of families in certain sub-cultures that aren't representative of the larger population, then that means there is a large genetic bottleneck that is dramatically changing the population into something literally different, much more so than a population with more even reproduction.

Anonymous said...

I think all this marriage ratio talk as an explanation detracts from the bigger reasons for tribalism. Blacks don't intermarry much at all in either configuration yet they still resent whitey to the core.

Obama did put a lot of Asians in big positions. Shinseki, Chu and Locke. Maybe that's it? Tokenism rewarded?

MaMu1977 said...

The Asian vote dropped for one simple reason-Model Minority politics don't work. Or, to be clear, Model Minority politics only work when you can "walk the talk". Immigrants don't vote for money (if they did, then they'd vote republican), they vote for people who make them *feel* good/"right". For a first generation Korean immigrant who wants to make money and see his children succeed, republican politics are "right". For a third-generation American of Korean descent who isn't that good at math, has actually broken the 5'9" height barrier and can barely talk to his relatives in their language, republicanism seems quaint.

And yes, there are always exceptions to the rule. I've known conservatives who only use a person's race as an identifier ("Yeah, you wanna talk to Brian. Not White Brian, Chinese Brian."), and liberals who do stupid things like invite an Asian friend to a pot roast dinner, but forego giving them a knife and fork because "Those people use chopsticks in their culture."

Anonymous said...

This affects not just Jews and Asians but whites also. Family formation is difficult for many whites as well. If a large proportion of children are coming from a small number of families in certain sub-cultures that aren't representative of the larger population, then that means there is a large genetic bottleneck that is dramatically changing the population into something literally different, much more so than a population with more even reproduction.

30% of women have 55% of children (moms with 3 or more), and 10% of women have 25% of children (moms with 4 or more). OTOH, 37% of women have 10% of children (non-mothers or moms with 1 child).